The tall building behind where Standard Life House (1996?-) isn't is the building on Canning Street, apparently built in 1973.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
20's Plenty for Edinburgh
(194 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
The stone of the Balmoral / North British Hotel was cleaned 1988-1991. It doesn't look too clean in that picture!
There's also a bus at the start of Waterloo Place in Lowland Scottish livery (yellow and SMT Green). Puts it some place between 1985 and 1999ish.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"... overnight when the roads are clear and there are no pedestrians about. In those circumstances it’s not dangerous to go over 20mph"
That attitude might explain why the top 5 hours for taxis being in collisions with pedestrians in Edinburgh are those between 11pm and 4am.
46% of all taxi/pedestrian injury collisions in Edinburgh happened between 11pm and 4am. (For all of Scotland the figure is nearer one-third and the 3rd highest hour is from 3pm, behind midnight and 1am)Posted 10 years ago # -
If you look at the evidence, what seems to work is measures like speed bumps and narrower roads. Covering whole areas in one 20mph limit and putting up some signs is a cheap way to do it. We’d rather see investment made in dealing with the streets where there will be the most benefit.
Good to see Neil Greig arguing for giving up roadspace for segegrated cycle lanes. Or is that just my reading of it?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Or is that just my reading of it?
Well he was on BBC Scotland at 6:30 saying much the same - but the piece was about strict liability - 'it's ok in Netherlands, there's the infrastucture, everyone knows where to cycle'
Then said something about needing the infrastucture here before changing the law on liability.
Clearly he is more against the possibility of law change than actually 'in favour of segregation' etc.
He might think 'it'll never happen here' but he's not against it!
But it could be a useful discussion -
OK Neil, where do you mean when you say -
"streets where there will be the most benefit"
- the odd stretch here and there or major segregated infrastructure alongside main roads??
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good to see Neil Greig arguing for giving up roadspace
I think these are more 'delaying tactics'
Neil Greig knows fine well that councils won't have the money to narrow/speedhump every road in existence and even if they did, it would take so long that the oil will have run out by then anyway (or the planet will have melted)
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm going to be discussing the 20 mph speed limit today at noon:
Watch @TheScotsman's 20mph speed limits debate live at 12 with @EilidhTroup and @NeilGreigIAM at http://scotsman.com/videoWish me luck! This thread and the http://www.20splentyforedinburgh.moonfruit.com/ page have been great for info.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good luck - will this be available to watch again later?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good luck daisydaisy. Remember, know what you want to say and say it :-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good luck daisydaisy. Well done for volunteering!
Posted 10 years ago # -
The EEN is shamelessly trolling for hits on this story. Yesterday's article (linked to above) has had its headline changed from "to be implemented in February" to "...bill hits £2.2m" and is now first on their website. The article is otherwise unchanged.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ daisydaisy enjoy.
(Well try to! - I'm sure 'we' will.)
See if you can get NG to outline his 'vision' for masses of segregated cycle routes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Don't suppose you'll get the chance to mention -
"
Apparently only 14% get there by car, somewhat surprisingly 28% got there by train... 26% foot, 17% bus, 11% bike, 3% tram, 1% taxi.
"
Of course that's just 'leisure'.
Real problem is apparent 'right' of people to drive to work (and the general willingness of politicians to allow/accept/encourage it).
At 'rush' hour 20mph is seldom an issue!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thanks for reminding me of your favourite stats. I like the idea of getting Neil to expand on his alternative vision of segregated infrastructure!
Posted 10 years ago # -
You will be able to watch it later.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I wonder how many people there are in the IAM's policy and research departments, being directed by Neil Greig. Maybe it's just him, which is why he's not had time to research things like kinetic energy and the energy required to accelerate large masses to higher speeds (pointlessly, when they then have to brake at the next queue).
Posted 10 years ago # -
here's one for you when they mention 'spiralling cost of implementation':
each road fatality costs us 1.69 million, so 20mph will SAVE money, not cost it.
http://www.makingthelink.net/tools/costs-child-accidents/costs-road-accidents)
Posted 10 years ago # -
"pointlessly, when they then have to brake at the next queue"
Yes.
Perhaps he can get more members by offering a big discount on a new 'how to drive in Edinburgh's 20mph zones' course.
The rest of the course would be paid for in fuel and maintenance cost savings.
(And that's without mentioning 'externals' like less wear on the roads, less noise, lower air pollution etc. etc.)
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm sure you know all this, but you might like to think about the statements
"People will drive at the speed that a road 'feels like', not what's written on the sign"
(People used to feel safe drinking four pints and driving, there has been a cultural change here of which changing and enforcing the law was a significant part."There's no point if it won't be enforced"
It will be enforced, just as police enforce all speed restrictions. Some confusion over comments about it not being a priority, not sure what the deal is here."It's difficult to drive a car at 20mph"
(heard a green lady on radio4 give the excellent answer, 'I'm no expert in driving but I just move down a gear and that seems to work')Posted 10 years ago # -
"I just move down a gear and that seems to work"
Indeed, but there's usually the nonsense response about engines not working efficiently at low(er) speed resulting in more fuel use, pollution etc.
There is the fantasy notion that (in town) people just merrily cruise along at 30mph and now 'the council' will MAKE them drive at 20.
Of course no-one bothers to mention that car engines don't run efficiently from the second they are switched on in the morning. In fact many don't reach optimum conditions before the owner has arrived at work!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Indeed, but there's usually the nonsense response about engines not working efficiently at low(er) speed resulting in more fuel use, pollution etc.
That would only make any sense whatsoever if a car didn't have a gearbox. The whole point in a gearbox is that it allows the engine to run for most of the time in a fairly narrow band of revolutions at which it is at its most efficient and which places a low amount of stress on the components.
Perhaps some drivers are like the die-hard fixionados who refuse to run at anything over than 81 inches of gears.
"It's difficult to drive a car at 20mph"
It doesn't seem that hard, all the folks chugging along at 4mph I pass every morning on London Road seem more than capable of also mastering their phones, ipods, listening to music or the radio, chatting to the rare other occupant of the car or perhaps eating a slice of toast like a gentleman I saw this morning.
Posted 10 years ago # -
For a moment I was wondering if @NeilGreigIAM was going for a trendy Twitter name by aping Will.I.AM, but I now realise that "IAM" stands for something else entirely.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh, so much more I could have said! Child mortality, inequality, 20 mph as the default on all urban areas, small increases in speed leading to large increases in braking distance and fatality.
I got drawn into the debate as it was framed, and was surprised not to get asked why i was in favour of 20 in the first place, all chat about implementation details...
It's not online yet, so I've not had a chance to watch it back.Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm sure it went great. these things are just like near misses/road rage - so much you wish you had said after the fact!
Posted 10 years ago # -
@NeilGreigIAM was entertaining with his insistence that drivers are too stupid to notice signs, or, you know, the law. You made a good point that you expect drivers to obey the law. Well done.
Other gems include - "enforcement would be very unpopular" from Neily boy.
Also he was trying to align Living Streets with the IAM... Not sure that's really true.
Also you need infrastructure "so that you KNOW that you're sharing the road with vulnerable road users."
Posted 10 years ago # -
But well done Daisy Daisy - you did very well. Always bad to think back on these things you'll always think of other things you could have done.
You won IMHO!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thanks guys, v useful to read here what Neil was likely to say and some responses to that.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
So -
Neil Greig doesn't think signs are enough because 'drivers take their cues from the road/surroundings'.
So -
Need to 'change streetscape like Denmark'.
So -
He'll be campaigning for the SG to spend lots of money -
(?)
He really seems to have no understanding beyond the 'road safety' arguments.
But he did seem to be listening - and looked as though he has hearing some good points (from dd) for the first time!
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
